At least the Obama fanboys have kept the theme consistent that its all the fault of that evil Bush guy. We can look forward to that being the theme of everything for the next 3 years or so.

The truth hurts. Get used to it.

-Hrnac

A typical response from a Party of No member. Nothing.

I do admire your ability to add smilies to your posts. That is a real talent. You should be proud.

-Hrnac

I'm a fairly hardcore Republican, but I can admit that my party made more than its fair share of mistakes. The Democrats are already on the same path, but just at faster speeds. I think America would be better served if we all became Independents.

I've said it before- no party should hold all divisions of government.

1. Sima Samar. What she did to deserve Nobel peace prize? Open school and clinic? Fight for women's right? Less effect on world peace than Obama. In fact with her insistence on fighting for women's right in Afghanistan, she increased the risk of violence by agitating Taliban instead of trying to work toward peaceful environment.2. Ingrid Betancourt? What she did to deserve Nobel peace prize? Became a hostage. So you think this woman deserve Nobel peace prize more than Obama?3. Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalation. What did this organization do to deserve Nobel peace prize? Cleaning land mines and bombs after war. They don't do anything to create peace, they are just a bunch of janitors to clean up after other create peace and stop war.4. Hu Jia. This one also didn't work toward peace. Incite subversion of state power is creating chaos and increase risk of civil war. That isn't working toward peace.5. Wei Jiansheng. Another China troublemaker. Guys like this one doesn't care about peace, they just want to overthrow China government.

So look at this year nominees, I guess Obama is still a better choice.

1. Sima Samar. What she did to deserve Nobel peace prize? Open school and clinic? Fight for women's right? Less effect on world peace than Obama. In fact with her insistence on fighting for women's right in Afghanistan, she increased the risk of violence by agitating Taliban instead of trying to work toward peaceful environment.

Fucking seriously? Wow. Just... wow.

Logged

Purge - You have unlocked an Achievement!You are now of the rank reprobate

I gotta say I really don't care. It's not like Obama lobbied to be given the prize. I think it's personally a bit of a joke and probably wasn't the brightest idea, but oh well.

I wouldn't be surprised that some of the motivation for giving this to Obama was the anti-Bush sentiment that was (is) pretty widespread across Europe. It's kind of giving Bush one last thumb in the eye by deciding to give the Nobel to his successor almost instantly after Bush left office.

I gotta say I really don't care. It's not like Obama lobbied to be given the prize. I think it's personally a bit of a joke and probably wasn't the brightest idea, but oh well.

I wouldn't be surprised that some of the motivation for giving this to Obama was the anti-Bush sentiment that was (is) pretty widespread across Europe. It's kind of giving Bush one last thumb in the eye by deciding to give the Nobel to his successor almost instantly after Bush left office.

Again, no it isnt... As I've said before, several top politicians have asked the Nobel comitee to clarify and explain why the prize was given to Obama...

I gotta say I really don't care. It's not like Obama lobbied to be given the prize. I think it's personally a bit of a joke and probably wasn't the brightest idea, but oh well.

I wouldn't be surprised that some of the motivation for giving this to Obama was the anti-Bush sentiment that was (is) pretty widespread across Europe. It's kind of giving Bush one last thumb in the eye by deciding to give the Nobel to his successor almost instantly after Bush left office.

Again, no it isnt... As I've said before, several top politicians have asked the Nobel comitee to clarify and explain why the prize was given to Obama...

Europe still isnt one country...

I don't think we're communicating here.

Just because some "top politicians" have asked doesn't mean that the motivation to give it to Obama didn't have anything to do with Bush. Seriously, how would you ever know why certain people voted the way they did?

Did I in any way claim Europe to be a country at all? It's a region of the world - a continent - and anti-Bush sentiment was (is) pretty high across that area of the world. Making it no different than virtually any other area of the world in that respect. Or are you trying to argue that anti-Bush sentiment isn't high across that region?

What I react to, is the statements that the nobel prize was given because Europe doesnt like Bush...what I meant by my statement was, that this isnt something "Europe" has done, but a norwegian comitee - and to make a counterpoint to the statement a lot of people have made that its europe giving the finger, so to speak to Bush, I stated that many here in Europe (Yes, we have top politicians here in Europe as well ;-) ) has also reacted with puzzlement as to the reason why Obama was given this prize. Even I, and I like the guy.

And no, you didnt state Europe was one region I see...apologies for sounding snarky there - I blame poor reading skills

Oh, and I'm not arguing Anti-bush isnt high in many areas, its just a lot more nuanced than it being in "Europe", I'm arguing that its not a common thing we all decided one night through our secret channels ;-)

So what? Posters at GT don't need you to tell them what to do. You're not a expert on trolls, we're not discussing the stupid US Patents Office here.

As for trolling or not. What I posted here was not trolling. I posted it in response to brettmcd linked article about who else were in the nomination. And I think those listed are not better choice compare to Obama because they don't do much for world peace. Fighting for women's right isn't working for world peace. Being a hostage isn't working for world peace. Cleaning mines and unexploded bombs after war isn't working for world peace. Protesting communist China isn't working for world peace. Compare to them, Obama did more for world peace.

I posted it in response to brettmcd linked article about who else were in the nomination. And I think those listed are not better choice compare to Obama because they don't do much for world peace.

brettmcd's article is just one entry from the Weekly Standard blog snarking about people whom they think will appear more qualified - the actual list of nominations for each year's peace prize are kept secret for fifty years after the award.

You know, you're absolutely right. Fighting for women's rights in a nation where they can be stoned/beaten/abused with impunity is absolutely not bringing us closer to world peace. Because violence against women doesn't count against peace.

Logged

Purge - You have unlocked an Achievement!You are now of the rank reprobate

The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

As laudable as those humanitarian accomplishments are, do they fit the ostensible goal of the prize? I don't think it's warranted for Obama given his continued prosecution of two wars, but I don't have any alternative candidates to put forward.

I hadn't read the actual Nobel mission statement before. I guess it depends on how strictly you interpret that statement, but I'll admit that a straight read of it does, in fact, exclude the efforts for women's rights (which are really more a case of fighting for basic human rights) mentioned earlier in the thread.

I would argue that it's quite reasonable to extrapolate from the core Nobel mission statement to interpret working for human rights as part of working towards the goal of world peace, but that's interpretive on my part.

Logged

Purge - You have unlocked an Achievement!You are now of the rank reprobate

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.

Quote

In country after country, climate-related issues are moving up the political agenda. The two who, in the opinion of the Nobel Committee, should be given the greatest credit for this development are this year's Laureates, the IPCC and Al Gore.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.

Quote

In country after country, climate-related issues are moving up the political agenda. The two who, in the opinion of the Nobel Committee, should be given the greatest credit for this development are this year's Laureates, the IPCC and Al Gore.

I hadn't read the actual Nobel mission statement before. I guess it depends on how strictly you interpret that statement, but I'll admit that a straight read of it does, in fact, exclude the efforts for women's rights (which are really more a case of fighting for basic human rights) mentioned earlier in the thread.

I would argue that it's quite reasonable to extrapolate from the core Nobel mission statement to interpret working for human rights as part of working towards the goal of world peace, but that's interpretive on my part.

Are you capable of a nuanced reading of anything at all? Clearly the Nobel committee disagrees with you, as they interpreted " the best work for fraternity among nations" as building common cause around the world to combat a global problem.

If you have a problem with their application of their own criteria when awarding their prize, call a Norwegian to complain.

Are you capable of a nuanced reading of anything at all? Clearly the Nobel committee disagrees with you, as they interpreted " the best work for fraternity among nations" as building common cause around the world to combat a global problem.

If you have a problem with their application of their own criteria when awarding their prize, call a Norwegian to complain.

This is the same committee that gave a peace award to a terrorist leader of a terrorist organization dedicated to wiping a country and group of people off the map, so I am quite proud of disagreeing with their idiotic choices for their awards.

Back to this award, again Obama got it for one reason and one reason only, because the committee wanted to take a kick at Bush who they hated. Not because the Zero has accomplished anything.

The problem is that Obama won it. He's the Kenyan Super Devil Commie. He can do no right and should receive no accolades for anything he does.

Quote

Not because the Zero has accomplished anything.

A quick check of Politifact shows that Obama has completed 47 of his campaign promises, 7 broken, 12 compromised. There are still 122 in the works with 12 stalled and 315 on the 'to do list'. By simple mathematics that's pretty damned good. You may disagree with what is being done, but clearly this is a guy who says he'll do something and then makes an honest attempt at it.

Do I think he deserves anything approaching the Nobel Peace Prize? I don't think that's warranted at this point. Is he trying to build a 'fraternity of nations'? I think he honestly is. (which will naturally be construed as 'bowing to the enemy'.)

I hadn't read the actual Nobel mission statement before. I guess it depends on how strictly you interpret that statement, but I'll admit that a straight read of it does, in fact, exclude the efforts for women's rights (which are really more a case of fighting for basic human rights) mentioned earlier in the thread.

I would argue that it's quite reasonable to extrapolate from the core Nobel mission statement to interpret working for human rights as part of working towards the goal of world peace, but that's interpretive on my part.

There are plenty of past winners that would fall under this vague category like Mother Theresa, MLK Jr., Norman Borlaug, etc. None of these people did anything directly towards ending wars between nations and yet they won the Peace prize.

Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

I hadn't read the actual Nobel mission statement before. I guess it depends on how strictly you interpret that statement, but I'll admit that a straight read of it does, in fact, exclude the efforts for women's rights (which are really more a case of fighting for basic human rights) mentioned earlier in the thread.

I would argue that it's quite reasonable to extrapolate from the core Nobel mission statement to interpret working for human rights as part of working towards the goal of world peace, but that's interpretive on my part.

There are plenty of past winners that would fall under this vague category like Mother Theresa, MLK Jr., Norman Borlaug, etc. None of these people did anything directly towards ending wars between nations and yet they won the Peace prize.

I hadn't read the actual Nobel mission statement before. I guess it depends on how strictly you interpret that statement, but I'll admit that a straight read of it does, in fact, exclude the efforts for women's rights (which are really more a case of fighting for basic human rights) mentioned earlier in the thread.

I would argue that it's quite reasonable to extrapolate from the core Nobel mission statement to interpret working for human rights as part of working towards the goal of world peace, but that's interpretive on my part.

There are plenty of past winners that would fall under this vague category like Mother Theresa, MLK Jr., Norman Borlaug, etc. None of these people did anything directly towards ending wars between nations and yet they won the Peace prize.

It all falls into the fraternity bucket.

I agree, which is my point in responding to Victoria Raverna's nonsense about the Peace prize being unworthy of a woman who incites violence because she "fights" for women's rights, a hostage, "a bunch of janitors", a subversive that dares to fight state power, and a Chinese "troublemaker".

Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.